Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Asi Jagtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 January, 2013

Author: Augustine George Masih

Bench: Augustine George Masih

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
               CHANDIGARH

                                        C.W.P.No.18509 of 2011
                                        Date of Decision:- 07.01.2013

ASI Jagtar Singh                             ....Petitioner(s)

                   vs.

State of Punjab and others                   ....Respondent(s)

                   ***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

                   ***

Present:-    Mr.K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.H.S.Sethi, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
             for respondents No.1 to 3.

             Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate,
             for respondent No.4.

                   ***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has approached this Court impugning order dated 22.9.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3-Director Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur repatriating the petitioner to his parent cadre.

Petitioner has challenged this order by asserting that Jaswinder Singh-respondent No.4, who has been posted now in place of the petitioner, does not fulfil the requisite qualifications for holding the said post as he has not undergone the Basic Riding Course.

This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that as the petitioner was admittedly sent on deputation by the respondents vide order dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure P-2) and he has been repatriated to his parent cadre only. There is no illegality in the said order C.W.P.No.18509 of 2011 -2- having been passed by respondent No.3. The question with regard to the eligibility of respondent No.4 for holding the said post does not make any difference as far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned.

The writ petition being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed.

January 07, 2013                       ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam                                           JUDGE